The Pillars of the Earth

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
My ignorance of history is a blessing for a change!

:lol:LOL!

Typically, I wouldn't have that level of detail in my knowledge of a historical period either, but this period has always intrigued me. I've done a lot of reading and research on the period for my next campaign. The Anarchy in England was a real world Points-of-Light setting.B-)

All-in-all though, after the first 10 minutes of the series, the settings history really doesn't matter much, and it's all about the story from then on. I am digging the story. Waleran is a real piece of work! That guy is just evil to the core. I mean real, true, honest to god Evil! My wife is creeped out by him.:heh:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Krug

Newshound
I enjoyed the book. I'm no big reader of historical fiction but the emphasis on church building definitely made the book stand out from other fare. I don't think anyone is that intent on historical accuracy. Watched the first two eps and definitely will catch the rest.
 

Iconik

First Post
Just added this to my instant queue. I have the book but never read it. Now I feel like I should before I watch this. But, it's Sunday and I can only play so much Titan Quest.


Just started watching the series today. It's a good story that I'm enjoying, but I'm finding the historical inaccuracies hard to swallow.

First, the White Ship is depicted as a Cog. Most accounts describe it as a Norman Longboat (much like the Norse Longboats of the Normans ancestors). Second, no account I've read of the sinking ever mentioned a Fire...only that the boat foundered on partially submerged rocks.

It also shows Henry I being told of the disaster, while a 9 or 10 year old Matilda sits at his feet. In 1120, Matilda was 18 years old, and had already been married to the Holy Roman Emperor for 9 years.

Then, the show opens (after the sinking) in 1138.

In 1138, the Henry I had already been dead for 3 years (died in December, 1135), and there was already open warfare between Stephen and Maude (Matilda). That's a pretty glaring mistake that's hard for me to ignore.

It also shows Stephen present at court when Henry I dies. Stephen was not present.

It shows open hostility between Robert (Earl of Gloucester and illegitimate son of Henry I) and Stephen (Count of Blois and grandson of William I) even before Henry I dies. Not so. In fact, Robert actually declared fealty to Stephen after his seizure of the throne (much to Maudes' consternation), and only turned from him after more than a year of Stephens rule.

Stephens charactarisation is wrong also. Tony Curran's portrayal of Stephen casts him as a hard, ruthless opportunist. Contemporary descriptions of him, portray him as genial and friendly to the point of being considered soft. Case in point: Stephen very much wanted the aforementioned Robert of Gloucesters loyalty...wanted it so badly that he was willing to allow Robert to choose his oath. Rather than complete fealty, Robert vowed that he would remain faithful to Stephen, only as long as Stephen remained Faithful to him. A demand that would have found anyone in chains until they relented, had they been dealing with Henry I. This percieved softness of Stephens was one of the reasons why the Barons wanted him over Maude (besides the obvious fact of her being a woman). Maude was very much her fathers daughter, strongwilled and passionate. And her husband at the time, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (as her first husband, the Holy Roman Emporer had already died), was a strong battlefield commander with a fiery temper. Also, being an Angevin, Geoffrey was a longtime enemy of the Normans. They didn't know if they would get Maude as Queen, or Geoffrey as King, but either possibility was unacceptable to them. The only reason they swore loyalty to Maude in the first place, was because Henry I would brook nothing else from his Barons. Nobody crossed Henry I.

All of the above is within the first ten minutes of the first episode! I haven't read the book that this was made from, so I can't attest to it's accuracy or inaccuracy. But as far as the mini-series goes, this doesn't bode well for accuracay throughout the rest of the series.:erm:

They got the lampreys right. :)


EDIT No. 3: OK. So I've watched the first 3 episodes on Netflix and now I'm hooked. I'm going to stop watching them and pick the book up again after having bought it and the sequel last winter.
 
Last edited:

Krug

Newshound
Still going strong. A trio of scheming, but not all-powerful, villains, plenty of characters that are neither black nor white (such as Alfred and Maude) and wonderfully shot. Considering the number of characters they have to cover, none of them get lost in the shuffle.
 
Last edited:

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I enjoyed the book. ...

I'm going to have to check out the book, since the series is leaving me kind of meh... I honestly don't think I'm even going to finish watching it. It had some potential, and I liked the initial character intro and development...but it just seems to be turning into a soap opera with nothing but twist-after-twist and reversal-upon-reversal. And the continuing extreme poetic license with the actual history of the period is really leaving me cold.

But, a lot of people have said the book was truly awesome...so I think I'll give that a try instead.:)
 

Krug

Newshound
Well if you're looking for historical accuracy you're probably not going to enjoy it. Think of it like a novel where the characters and their trials are more important than factual accuracy.

Of course there are a whole bunch of twists, and some hard to swallow. [block]Giving birth right after having stone blocks fall upon you.. ahem..[/block] But I enjoyed it for the setting and the acting, and having three rather nasty villains helped. ;)
 

Mark CMG

Creative Mountain Games
Of course there are a whole bunch of twists, and some hard to swallow. [block]Giving birth right after having stone blocks fall upon you.. ahem..[/block]


I think that happened between scenes and earlier, and that she was just keeping the baby hidden at that point under her robes (and it began crying because of the accident), IIANM.
 

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I think that happened between scenes and earlier, and that she was just keeping the baby hidden at that point under her robes (and it began crying because of the accident), IIANM.

That's what I think too, but they didn't do a very good job of showing that. Even my wife thought at first, that they were trying to show she had the baby when the roof fell. We both kind of figured it out at the same time, and we were both kind of meh about how it was protrayed.

I did like the part, though, where Jack's mother cursed the marriage by cutting the chickens throat and spraying Tom's son with the blood. That was pretty cool. She's one of the characters I've liked the most.
 



Remove ads

Top